Pages

Monday, December 9, 2013

A Funny Thing Happened on Our Way to Pick Up Photo Prints…

This is not a studio photograph,
it was taken by a proud father who sneaked into the Bride's room before the ceremony

Our daughter was married a few months ago. This is the season to start thinking about
using some of the wedding photographs for gifts, Christmas Cards and
calendars. Usually we print photos at
home on our home printer with premium photography paper, but when there is a
large number of prints we send them to a local store to be picked up. Sometimes we send photographs via an online
service to family in Spain or Puerto Rico to be picked up at their local
discount store or pharmacy. (I’m not
going to use store names here)

Before I go on with my story, I just want to mention that my
husband is not a professional photographer, but he is a prize winning
amateur.

We hired a professional photographer for our daughter’s
wedding. Many people do, and nowadays
they are given a disk with all the images instead of the old fashioned wedding
album of photographs like we received at our own wedding thirty years ago. This is standard procedure today. In the contract and at our meetings with the
photographer she told us we could do whatever we wanted with the images.

A few days ago we sent 25 photographs taken by both Vincent
and the professional photographer to a local chain pharmacy. They called to tell me the photos were ready,
but also warned that we could not pick them up until we brought in the copyright
release.

This was strange. We
had picked up some photographs months ago at another pharmacy chain store
without being asked for the copyright release.
I didn’t have the paperwork or the original disk, they are with my daughter. I immediately contacted her and asked her for
a copy of the release. She found it as a
PDF on the disk, and forwarded it to me, and I printed it out to bring to the
pharmacy.

Vincent checked the images our daughter had shared with us
on a memory stick. None of the professional
images had any metadata that identified them as from a studio. None of his images from his pocket digital
camera had any metadata that identified them as copyrighted. How did the pharmacy photo clerk know which
was which? How did they know that any of
them were from a studio?

When Vincent picked up the prints at the pharmacy, with the
printed release, he asked the clerk why she had called. She stated that the store policy was to ask
for a copyright release only if the photos “appeared” professional. When he asked about his own “home” photos,
the store demanded to see the memory card on his camera to see that he had
taken them himself, in the correct sequence.
This was standard procedure- to make a decision on releasing the
photographs based on the clerk’s personal opinion on the photo’s perceived
professionalism.

I checked online and found that this was the standard
procedure at Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Rite-Aid, Kmart and other chain stores
with photo services. You can check for
yourself.

Lessons learned:

1. When sharing digital images from a professional
photographer, always include the image of the copyright release. It should be the first image on the studio
disk. If not, pass out paper copies of
the contract or release to all the family members and friends who may want to
print those images.

2.Be prepared to show this release to store
clerks.

3. Be prepared to defend your own photographs. Clerks are making judgment calls on personal
photography if it appears “too professional”.
Have your original memory cards with you, showing the sequence of
photographs as they were originally taken.
A memory stick with an assortment of images out of sequence will be seen
as suspect.

4. If you send photographs out of town, out of
state, out of the country to be picked up at a store in a relative or friend’s
hometown, keep in mind that they might not be able to pick up photo prints that
appear “professional” without the release.
If they are from your own camera and appear to be “too professional” you
may be out of luck. I have no idea how
you would proceed to prove they are from a home camera in these cases.

5. These same problems may occur if you are using
Shutterfly, Blurb, or any other photo book publisher, or any other photo gift
product such as magnets, mugs, Christmas tree ornaments, etc. Be prepared to defend your right to use the
images whether they are from a studio or your own camera.

I certainly understand that
professional photographers want to protect their images, but I do not defend
the rights of store clerks to use their opinions on what constitutes a
professional image or not. If the images
are copyrighted, that would be included in the metadata. Photographs released to the customer on studio
disks under contracts do not appear to have copyrighted information in their metadata. At least that was our experience.

You can find many horror stories
online about folks having problems picking up their prints at stores. Just Google “[insert name of store] photo
copyright”.

20 comments:

Wal-Mart refused to print one our pictures that 'looked' professional but was not. We even had the picture on our camera card. They also wouldn't print one of my 70 year old family pictures that was taken professionally, but there was no way to obtain a release from a studio that no longer exists. It's ridiculous.

I have never had a problem using Snapfish (with professional wedding photographs). I do this by mail. This issue is a good one for people to know. Applying this to older photos - as the commenter mentioned - is just ridiculous.

I used Blurb and Shutterfly (in the past) for older studio photos and for new ones, too, with no problem, but I suppose it is in within their rights to ask for a copyright release. Be sure you know how to find the release (paperwork or electronic versions) just in case this issue comes up in the future.

Wow! Who knew? This seems an entirely too subjective standard to survive a legal challenge. The clerk's individual opinion of what "looks" professional -- really? The problem is the cost and inconvenience of challenging something like this. A personal laser printer might be a less expensive and more convenient option in the long run. Great post! Thank you.

Interesting post. I've had the same thing happen when trying to print wedding photos from the disk we were given by our daughter-in-law's parents. We ended up being able to print just a few pictures at a time. In the future, if I have a release, I'm going to print and keep it in the folder with the disk.

Heather, thanks for posting about this and making me aware... I would never have considered this at all. I agree completely, too-- I certainly agree that professionals should be able to protect their photos, but I don't think clerks should be making this determination of what constitutes a "professional" photo based on opinion. Frankly, that's not their job.

I've had problems with this, also. I wanted to have a photo printed of a family member that was around 100 years old, and yes.. a professional photo. Because it was a professional photo and I didn't have the approval from the actual photographer (who I can guarantee has been dead for decades), they wouldn't let me buy the copy. I tried explaining it to them about how old it was and they didn't care.

I've had problems with this, also. I wanted to have a photo printed of a family member that was around 100 years old, and yes.. a professional photo. Because it was a professional photo and I didn't have the approval from the actual photographer (who I can guarantee has been dead for decades), they wouldn't let me buy the copy. I tried explaining it to them about how old it was and they didn't care.

One thing everyone -- and I mean everyone -- needs to understand is that ALL photos are copyrighted unless they're old enough to have passed into the public domain. You could argue that those taken by a professional photographer that you've hired are "works for hire" and that you own the copyright, but you still need paperwork to prove that circumstance.

I'll be the first to agree that copyright law is ridiculous in terms of length of copyright (life of the producer plus 70 or 100 years, as the case may be, is not my idea of a "limited time"), but the simple fact is that as soon as something is committed to a physical medium it is copyrighted. No registration is required, no notice is required; it's automatic.

Dave L. sums it up pretty nicely. I'm a hobby genealogist and a professional photographer so I can see both sides of this issue. To make a long story short let's just say that the store owner has made it clear to their clerks that they do not want and cannot afford to be sued for copyright infringement by photographers whose livelihood may depend on their copyrighted works. The solution is as stated. Get a release from the copyright owner and bring it to the lab when you are having prints made.

As far as metadata goes it is way too easy to modify, so the labs can't rely on it. But refusing to print 100 year old photos? Crazy. But some lawsuits are not only crazy but very expensive so the labs are going to err on the side of caution.

As a pro photog and genealogist, I think there is one thing that needs to be added to the conversation. Lesson Number 1 notes sharing the print release with family and friends. I'd like to caution against this. Often, the release names the individual who has the print rights to the image, usually the person who has paid for the wedding or those who benefitted (bride and groom). This means that if a family member attempts to use the same release, and their name isn't on it, they can also be turned down for printing. I get questioned about my own images and have had to sign a release on the spot corroborating that they were in fact my images. I'll also post this comment on your blog for those that read there. To add, the laws are in place for cases like this, where the Walton family believes it owns the negatives and rights to images taken of their family by a local photographer and has sued the photographer's widow claiming they are their property. Naw, SO not the case. http://www.ppa.com/.../walmart-files-suit-against-pho.php

Copyright

You may NOT use the contents of this site for commercial purposes without explicit permission from the author and blog owner. Commercial purposes includes blogs with ads and income generating features, and/or blogs or sites using feed content as a replacement for original content. Full content usage is not permitted.

About Me

Author of the Nutfield Genealogy blog. My family research includes Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine, with a smattering of Nova Scotia. Please contact me if you see your ancestors on this blog. I would love to share information. I am the recording secretary of the New Hampshire Mayflower Society, President of the Londonderry Historical Society, member of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, the Mass. Society of Genealogists, The National Genealogical Society, and the New Hampshire Society of Genealogists.